Whatever Happened to Britain's Illegal-Immigrants-Go-Home Campaign?

Some months ago, the British Home Office, under the leadership of the Home Secretary, Theresa May, carried out a campaign to get illegal immigrants to 'go home' of their own accord rather than face arrest. Believe it or not, various vans were sent around London with the message 'go home or face arrest' printed on them.These vans drove around the London boroughs which were known as home to many illegal immigrants. There was also a plan to use such vans all around the UK. Predictably, the plans were ditched after critics condemned them.

Not only was the national campaign ditched, the van campaign in London itself also came in for a lot of stick. This wasn't in the least bit surprising. Leftist or anti-racist activists have very big mouths and loud voices and therefore they get a hell of a lot of air- and text-time on the BBC, in the Guardian, New Statesman, and tThe Independent. They also shout a lot in our regional newspapers. On top of all that, the van campaign also had to deal with the considerable political power of the rights and race industries (which are thriving at the moment).

By Leftist definition, what Theresa May attempted to do was racist. Why? Because most of the illegal immigrants she targeted would have been black and brown. That meant, by Marxist/Leftist definition, that the campaign was automatically racist. That's no surprise because it's also racist to criticize Muslims who happen to have brown skin; as well as racist to imprison terrorists or criminals who also happen to have brown or black skins. Any negative act by a white person, or, in this case, by a white government, towards a 'person of color' -- even if that act is not determined by that person's skin color -- is deemed to be racist. This is the Leftist (Marxist) logic which says that when 'people with political power' (i.e., white people) criticize or act against 'people without political power' (i.e., blacks and browns), it is always and automatically racist -- literally!

Of course Leftists never put all this in simple English. That's because they know that were they to do so, what they say would turn out to be either utterly banal or completely unacceptable/false (as is often the case with postmodern and poststructuralist philosophy). Hence the weasel words and the pretentious jargon behind all the PC bullshit.

Following on from that Leftist catechism (that targeting immigrants is targeting brown and black people and is therefore racist), our shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said that the 'go home' van campaign was 'divisive'. Really? I really don't understand that. The word 'divisive' is clearly Cooper-code for 'racist'. But because that word is too blatant, Cooper used the word 'divisive' instead. In other words, making Trotskyist/progressive noises, even when you're a Labour politician, can often backfire.

Whatever the case, how can it be said that the campaign was racist -- or 'divisive' -- if it was aimed at illegal immigrants; not at legal immigrants or specifically at black or brown people (many UK illegals have white skin)? What divisions, exactly, would such a campaign have created if the objects of that campaign weren't British in the first place? However, the Anti-Racist A Team would have made damn sure it was divisive simply by trying its best to make it divisive. That is, they would have made the issue 'all about race ' -- yes, race again! -- and nothing at all about illegality, illegal immigrants taking the jobs of British people, the creation inner-city conflict and all the rest. Thus, when someone -- such as Yvette Cooper -- uses the word 'racist', the entire country -- or at least the political establishment -- seems to go into thought-death. And that's precisely why Yvette Cooper used the scare-word 'divisive'.

The ironic thing is that Yvette Cooper criticizes the UK's Conservative Party for not dealing with illegal immigration. Actually, it's not ironic at all. The Labour Party created the problem. So it can hardly criticize anyone else for it. Between 2000 and 2010 the Labour Party engaged in one of the most massive social experiments the UK has ever known when it deliberately flooded the country with over one million immigrants. It did so completely behind the backs of British voters -- including Labour Party voters. Why did it do so? It did so in order to alter the racial and political balance of the UK for its own political and ideological benefit.

Since the Labour Party has been in favor of mass immigration, and immigrants who were legal yesterday (in Labour-time) are often illegal today (in Conservative-time), you can only assume that Yvette Cooper said what she said simply to score political points against Theresa May and the Conservative Party; not because she has a genuine problem with illegal immigrants. As I said, many of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were deemed legal under Labour Party rule (1997 to 2010) would now be deemed to be illegal. The difference, then, is largely technical, not one of principle.

Finally, many pro-immigration zealots appear to claim that they're only in favor of legal immigration. So it was a surprise -- no it wasn't! -- how much of a fuss these very same people also made about Theresa May's campaign against illegal immigrants. What these anti-racists or Leftists say about all issues concerning legal immigrants, they also said about the campaign against illegal immigrants (i.e., it too was 'racist' or 'xenophobic', as well as other things with 'ist' on the end). In other words, these anti-racist campaigners are tacitly -- though sometimes explicitly -- arguing in favor of illegal immigration too. Or, to put it in another and more honest way, all Leftists, and most pro-immigration campaigners, believe in complete and unrestricted immigration into our country.

The extreme Left in the UK (such as the SWP-Counterfire-UAF, Respect, Hope Not Hate, etc.), as well as the Gramscian 'hegemony' which can be found in large parts of the law, virtually the whole of the rights and race businesses, the universities, the charities, parts of the BBC, the Guardian, etc., are largely in favor of illegal immigration and indeed mass immigration. They are so for three main reasons:

1) Primarily it is because they are 'internationalists'. This means that nationhood -- and therefore borders -- means nothing to them.

2) They also want to wipe out -- or significantly reduce -- the number of people with white skin in the UK because being white (unless you're a middle-class Leftist) is, in itself, somehow racist.

3) More importantly, the more immigrants there are, the more instability, unemployment and social chaos there will be. That's a very good thing for Trotskyists. In other words, chaos, instability, race riots and high unemployment will benefit International Socialists. (It will also benefit their totalitarian brothers: the National Socialists.) Instability and conflict, as well as extreme poverty and unemployment, is manna from heaven for the extreme Left. How else will they ever have a chance of bring forward their complete and total revolution they so desire?

In other words, "the worse it is, the better it is" for revolutionaries; as well as for Nazis (who also often class themselves as 'revolutionaries' and 'anti-capitalists'). Out of the chaos, the violence and the mass unemployment (which will be largely brought about by unrestricted mass immigration), the phoenix of revolutionary International Socialism, or National Socialism (take your pick), will arise. And all this can only be a good thing... if you're a Nazi or a Trotskyist/progressive.

Some months ago, the British Home Office, under the leadership of the Home Secretary, Theresa May, carried out a campaign to get illegal immigrants to 'go home' of their own accord rather than face arrest. Believe it or not, various vans were sent around London with the message 'go home or face arrest' printed on them.

These vans drove around the London boroughs which were known as home to many illegal immigrants. There was also a plan to use such vans all around the UK. Predictably, the plans were ditched after critics condemned them.

Not only was the national campaign ditched, the van campaign in London itself also came in for a lot of stick. This wasn't in the least bit surprising. Leftist or anti-racist activists have very big mouths and loud voices and therefore they get a hell of a lot of air- and text-time on the BBC, in the Guardian, New Statesman, and tThe Independent. They also shout a lot in our regional newspapers. On top of all that, the van campaign also had to deal with the considerable political power of the rights and race industries (which are thriving at the moment).

By Leftist definition, what Theresa May attempted to do was racist. Why? Because most of the illegal immigrants she targeted would have been black and brown. That meant, by Marxist/Leftist definition, that the campaign was automatically racist. That's no surprise because it's also racist to criticize Muslims who happen to have brown skin; as well as racist to imprison terrorists or criminals who also happen to have brown or black skins. Any negative act by a white person, or, in this case, by a white government, towards a 'person of color' -- even if that act is not determined by that person's skin color -- is deemed to be racist. This is the Leftist (Marxist) logic which says that when 'people with political power' (i.e., white people) criticize or act against 'people without political power' (i.e., blacks and browns), it is always and automatically racist -- literally!

Of course Leftists never put all this in simple English. That's because they know that were they to do so, what they say would turn out to be either utterly banal or completely unacceptable/false (as is often the case with postmodern and poststructuralist philosophy). Hence the weasel words and the pretentious jargon behind all the PC bullshit.

Following on from that Leftist catechism (that targeting immigrants is targeting brown and black people and is therefore racist), our shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said that the 'go home' van campaign was 'divisive'. Really? I really don't understand that. The word 'divisive' is clearly Cooper-code for 'racist'. But because that word is too blatant, Cooper used the word 'divisive' instead. In other words, making Trotskyist/progressive noises, even when you're a Labour politician, can often backfire.

Whatever the case, how can it be said that the campaign was racist -- or 'divisive' -- if it was aimed at illegal immigrants; not at legal immigrants or specifically at black or brown people (many UK illegals have white skin)? What divisions, exactly, would such a campaign have created if the objects of that campaign weren't British in the first place? However, the Anti-Racist A Team would have made damn sure it was divisive simply by trying its best to make it divisive. That is, they would have made the issue 'all about race ' -- yes, race again! -- and nothing at all about illegality, illegal immigrants taking the jobs of British people, the creation inner-city conflict and all the rest. Thus, when someone -- such as Yvette Cooper -- uses the word 'racist', the entire country -- or at least the political establishment -- seems to go into thought-death. And that's precisely why Yvette Cooper used the scare-word 'divisive'.

The ironic thing is that Yvette Cooper criticizes the UK's Conservative Party for not dealing with illegal immigration. Actually, it's not ironic at all. The Labour Party created the problem. So it can hardly criticize anyone else for it. Between 2000 and 2010 the Labour Party engaged in one of the most massive social experiments the UK has ever known when it deliberately flooded the country with over one million immigrants. It did so completely behind the backs of British voters -- including Labour Party voters. Why did it do so? It did so in order to alter the racial and political balance of the UK for its own political and ideological benefit.

Since the Labour Party has been in favor of mass immigration, and immigrants who were legal yesterday (in Labour-time) are often illegal today (in Conservative-time), you can only assume that Yvette Cooper said what she said simply to score political points against Theresa May and the Conservative Party; not because she has a genuine problem with illegal immigrants. As I said, many of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were deemed legal under Labour Party rule (1997 to 2010) would now be deemed to be illegal. The difference, then, is largely technical, not one of principle.

Finally, many pro-immigration zealots appear to claim that they're only in favor of legal immigration. So it was a surprise -- no it wasn't! -- how much of a fuss these very same people also made about Theresa May's campaign against illegal immigrants. What these anti-racists or Leftists say about all issues concerning legal immigrants, they also said about the campaign against illegal immigrants (i.e., it too was 'racist' or 'xenophobic', as well as other things with 'ist' on the end). In other words, these anti-racist campaigners are tacitly -- though sometimes explicitly -- arguing in favor of illegal immigration too. Or, to put it in another and more honest way, all Leftists, and most pro-immigration campaigners, believe in complete and unrestricted immigration into our country.

The extreme Left in the UK (such as the SWP-Counterfire-UAF, Respect, Hope Not Hate, etc.), as well as the Gramscian 'hegemony' which can be found in large parts of the law, virtually the whole of the rights and race businesses, the universities, the charities, parts of the BBC, the Guardian, etc., are largely in favor of illegal immigration and indeed mass immigration. They are so for three main reasons:

1) Primarily it is because they are 'internationalists'. This means that nationhood -- and therefore borders -- means nothing to them.

2) They also want to wipe out -- or significantly reduce -- the number of people with white skin in the UK because being white (unless you're a middle-class Leftist) is, in itself, somehow racist.

3) More importantly, the more immigrants there are, the more instability, unemployment and social chaos there will be. That's a very good thing for Trotskyists. In other words, chaos, instability, race riots and high unemployment will benefit International Socialists. (It will also benefit their totalitarian brothers: the National Socialists.) Instability and conflict, as well as extreme poverty and unemployment, is manna from heaven for the extreme Left. How else will they ever have a chance of bring forward their complete and total revolution they so desire?

In other words, "the worse it is, the better it is" for revolutionaries; as well as for Nazis (who also often class themselves as 'revolutionaries' and 'anti-capitalists'). Out of the chaos, the violence and the mass unemployment (which will be largely brought about by unrestricted mass immigration), the phoenix of revolutionary International Socialism, or National Socialism (take your pick), will arise. And all this can only be a good thing... if you're a Nazi or a Trotskyist/progressive.